tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN January 8, 2012 10:00am-11:00am EST
of the union." i'm candy crowley in new hampshire. you can find today's interviews as well as analysis, web ex-clusex ex-cluesives at cnn.com. up next for viewers here in the united states, "fareed zakaria gps". this is "gps," the global public squarement welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a great show for you today. i was asking myself whom would i like to hear from about the ups and downs this crazy republican race. my answer was alan simpson, the former republican senator from wyoming, legendary for his frankness and wit. of course, we'll also talk it america's fiscal future because he is the simpson of simpson-bowles. next up, i'll talk to a scholar and former pentagon official about the administration's dramatic plan to cut the pentagon budget. is it too much, too little, or is it the goldie locks budget? then, the west and iran are
headed toward a serious showdown. what happens next? will oil spike to $150 a barrel? what is the end game here? we have four top experts to guide us through. also, we'll tell you the real reason china is revamping most of its television shows. it's not to get better ratings. my take this week is on iran. you'll hear from others on this later, but i'll go first. there's not much foreign policy talk on the campaign trail, as you probably noticed, except for one issue. everyone is talking about iran's new strength and assertiveness, its missile tests, its progress on the nuclear program, its moves in iraq. mitt romney, the republican front-runner, describes iran as the greatest threat the world faces over the next decade. in fact, the real story on the ground is that iran is weak and getting weaker. sanctions have pushed the economy into a nose-dive. the political system is fractured and fragmenting. the simplest measure of iran's
strength is its currency. when barack obama became president, you could buy 9,700 rials with one dollar. since then the dollar has appreciated 60% against the rial, meaning this week you could buy 15,600 rials with one dollar. iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad told his parliament recently that the latest sanctions were the heaviest economic onslaught on a nation in history. the iranian government's reaction to the prospects of sanctions that could hit hits ol exports shows its desperation. they blocked the strait of horm hormuz, saying it's as easy as drinking a glass of water. but the guards backtracked explaining that iran has no intention of blocking the straits. frankly it would be mad tons do so because iran would suffer more than any other country. blocking the straits would result in a near shutdown of
iran's exports and imports. with 60% of iran's economy coming from oil special reporex would bring it to a standstill. the nuclear spring making progress. this is inevitable. nuclear technology is 70 years old. iran has a serious scientific and technological community. and it does see the nuclear program as an emblem of national security and pde. but do we think of north korea as strong and on the rise because it has a few crude nuclear weapons? the obama administration seem to have concluded that the iranian regime is not ready or able to make a strategic reconciliation with the west. the regime is too divided and khomeini, the ultimate authority, supreme leader, is too ideologically rigid. for now, washington wants to build pressure on iran in the hope that this will force the regime into serious negotiations at some point. the strategy is understandable, but it also risks building up pressures that could take a
course of their own with explosive results. the price of oil is rising and is high during a global economic slump. only because of these gey political risks. without -- geopolitical risks. without the strategy, these risks will only grow. remembe remember, weak countries whose regimes face pressure can sometimes cause a lot more problems than strong countries. let's get started. joining me now, the republican party's elder statesman from wyoming, alan simpson. senator, pleasure to have you on. >> it's a great treat to be here, i'm very pleased. >> do you think that mitt romney has now wrapped up the nomination for all intents and purposes? >> i think that's very possible because they've washed all the
laundry of his that they could ever find. now they're going to start washing the laundry of rick santorum who has not had his laundry washed yet. everyone that rose to the top here suddenly created a great deal of investigation and examination, and rick santorum has never had that. when they got it, the others who have fallen, all capable people when they got it, they all dropped. so romney's had his thoroughly strung on the line and has survived. and now they're going to start dragging the laundry out on santorum and stringing it up on the line. and there will be tough stuff in there. controversial stuff. you know, abortion, homosexuality, those flash words and earmarks and all that stuff bam, bam, here we go. >> what do you think it says about the party, that it seems to have tried desperately to fall in love with everyone but mitt romney? >> i don't know.
it's a strange thing. i think that he's a very effective man, and i think the reason they keep coming back to him regardless of the "flaws they attribute to him" is that he's the only guy that ever met a payroll. he's the only guy that ever took over a failed organization filled with corruption and disunity and dysfunctional like the congress. and put it back together, and then taken businesses which were on the ropes. somebody said, yeah, but he killed -- got rid of all these people. i said, well, you got two choices when you take over a failed business. let it fail and everybody's out of work, or take it over and hire half of them back, pay the shareholders and get cracking. that's what he did. >> so you endorse him? >> i haven't done that yet because i feel that i've irtoileted everyo e-- irritated in the united states. they wouldn't want the curse visited upon them because with the -- whatterskine and did has
pe turned everyone in america. with grover norquist and name them, man, oh, man, it's been fun, i love it. >> one more question on the politics before the debt issue. what does did say about the tea party, though? this was the great vaunted new element in the republican party. and at the end of the day, it seems like the republican party is, as it always does, is nominating the front-runner, the guy who's waited in line, the guy who's run before. and, you know, that fairly traditional hierarchical dynamic is at work. the tea party wasn't able to change it at all. >> well, republicans give each other the saliva test of purity. they like to give the saliva test of purity, and then they lose and then they just bitch for four years. it's amazing party. and i've watched it with some trepidation. but honestly, if that's what they're going to do again, this guy is not pure enough, not conservative enough, too
liberal. then obama's a walk-in, and they know it. they're having fun watching this. >> so one of the central moment in the republican debates, the candidates are asked -- if you get $10 of spending cuts for $1 of tax increases, would you take it? and not one of them took it. i take it your view is that this is fantasy, that there is simply no way to deal with the budget without raising taxes. >> it's dream world. and i couldn't believe it when i watched that. when they asked the question, nine hands shot up like robot. and i thought, how can you get there? you don't have to raise taxes which, of course, makes grover froth at the mouth and all his minutesons. you just go into the tax code and say let's get rid of these tax expenditures. they are $1.1 trillion a year. home interest deduction, $1 million. second homes -- no. we said, get it down to
$500,000, then give it 12.5% nonrefundable tax credit. that helps the little guy everybody talks about. charitable deduction. give a 12.5% nonrefundable tax credit. and then go in and look at the rest of the stuff. you won't believe what's in there. parking for employees, blue cross insurance, oil and gas. i've trampled on my own sacred cows to do that pitch. but you have to -- it has to be self-sacrifice and know that this country is going broke. >> are you resigned to the fact that nothing is likely to happen on your proposal and the ideas around it until the election, or do you think that there's still a possibility in the next year something can happen? >> we'll see what happens. but every day that goes by, this is like a stink bomb in a garden party. as they're eating tea cookies and saying nothing's going to happen in america, this odor is coming out from under the table because you can't get there wye
doing waste, fraud and abuse, earmarks, airplane, air force one, congressional pensions, give it up. that's about 4% or 5% of what we're in. you have to deal with medicare, medicaid, the solvency of social security and defense. and if you can't raise the retirement age to 68 by the year 2050 without the aarp losing their marbles and grover slathering at the mouth on every kind of thing you talk about, calling it a tax cut increase, we won't make it. that's the kind of power that's out there, and making a dysfunctional government, why, pull up your shorts and start running for the exhibit. >> senator, when i was -- for the exit. >> senator, when i was growing up, you were thought of as a conservative guy. you were representing wyoming, after all. to listen to you now, you sound like a moderate. have you changed, or has the republican party changed? >> well, i think the republican party changed. but where -- what happened with
me is i always felt that abortion is a hideous and terrible thing. let's admit that. but it's a deeply intimate and personal decision. it's -- here's a party that believes in government out of your lives, the precious right of privacy, and the right to be left alone. well, then, what are you doing in this issue? partial-birth abortion is not an emotional issue, it's a medical issue. it's too free the birth canal for hopefully a later child. it's madness. gay/lesbian issues, we all know someone who we love that is gay or lesbian, what the hell is about that about -- that's madness. if we're trapped in that, we're headed for more strife. >> senator, pleasure to have you on. i hope we can have you on again. >> well, i hope you'll stick around because you speak with clarity, and you ask great questions. and you don't get caught up in all the garbage on the extreme right and the extreme left. people -- erskine and i go
around the country. we can speak to any group, right or left, give us an hour, let them ask questions, we'll get a standing ovation because people are thirsting for somebody to give them something other than b.s. or mush. and both parties are giving the american people b.s. and mush. and they're sick of it. and something's going to happen. what it is, but people -- people are smarter than their politicians. they always have been. and we'll see what happens. >> on that note, legendary note of frankness, senator alan simpson. >> it's a pleasure. up next, the pentagon's new strategic plan that says we can no longer fight two major wars at the same time. how will the cuts affect policy? we have a panel. [ male announcer ] truth is, dayquil doesn't treat that. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your runny nose. [ deep breath] awesome. [ male announcer ] yes, it is. that's the cold truth!
so, you're looking for help with your mortgage, worried about foreclosure. we can help you keep your house. all we ask for in return is that you submit to our plans for galactic domination. [laughing] [laughing hesitantly] [laughing evilly] sign. announcer: if you're facing foreclosure, talk to the right people. speak with hud-approved housing counselors free of charge at...
major wars at the same time. my next two guests from washington are experts at deciphering the near and long-term consequences of these cuts. lawrence korb is former assistant secretary of defense. he's now senior fellow at the center for american progress. two t michael o'hanlon is a senior at brookings a brookings&director of foreign policy. was it ever realistic to believe that the united states could fight two major wars at the same time, just in terms of the energy, time commitment pressures, i mean, what we saw when we were fighting iraq surely was -- reality is that this was always a planning device, or do i have it wrong? >> i think you're mostly right, fareed. even in the cold war when we had larger forces, the vietnam war drained a lot of capability from europe. and that had been true as well in korea. i think you're basically correct.
therefore, you can't make too much of this change. also, the pentagon today has -- this week has emphasized that they still do have that capability to do something in a second place. just wouldn't be a full, all-out second major contingency. and finally, and a point i've been trying to emphasize, is that was all the places where our interests are threatened, most are maritime or -- or air oriented. in other words, the persian gulf, waterways, strait of h hormuz, taiwan, it's not all classic land threats. if you can't handle two ground invasions at the same time at this point, that's probably all right. i think, a, you're right, it wasn't a big change from the past. b, to the extent that it is a change, it coordinates well with the changing landscape and where we see the greatest threats to our interests. >> larry, you've been calling for reform of the defense budget, frankly, for cuts for a long time. for you, do these go far enough? because you have always thought we've had basically a -- you know, a bloated military
establishment. >> well, basically, they're a step in the right direction. but they really do not go as far as they should given the threats that we face and as the president mentioned, the other economic concerns that we have. and i don't think -- i think basically we learn by that foolish invasion of iraq that we're not very good at this nation building and reengineering societies. so we had already decided ton do that. and so, therefore, you can cut the army and the marine corps ground forces back. they're talking about a 50,000 cut in the army. i'd go back to at least, you know, at least a 70,000 cut. >> but even with these cuts, we will have a military that is in dollar terms larger than the next ten countries put together. i can't think of any point in history when that was true. the british navy used to pride itself in the fact that they were larger than the next two put together. we're larger than the next ten put together. >> of course the british navy did not prevent the outbreak of
world war i. the deterrence failed in that case. there was too much competition. i don't mind that to sound like i want to pound my chest and outspend the chinese 10-1 forever, but i do think that it's a good issue to raise the basic point that you don't really want it to be too close in this business. having said that, we do have to be cognizant of the fact that our economy's not as strong as it used to be. we need some reasonable margin of advantage. that's why for me i think going back to a one ground war capability is a smart kind of gamble. i'm more nervous about saying that we should start choosing in terms of our navy capabilities between the persian gulf and the western pacific, for example, which is what i think you would have to start to do if you wind up with sequestration. if you make trillion-dollar cut over the next decade. i think you have to prioritize either the western pacific or the persian gulf. i don't believe you can do both equally. i'm not sure that's a smart gamble for american security right now. >> larry, i noticed that secretary panetta took on what has been politically a very tough thing, which is the
benefit packages that accrue to people who work for the pentagon, for the army. you retired after 20 years with these very generous pensions, full health care, even if you get another job you retain all that. do you think those cuts will be -- it will be politically possible to make those cuts? >> yeah, i think it is. if you get the military leadership to back it. they're the ones who got us into this mess. i don't want to blow my own horn, but when i was there i tried to deal with military retirement. i cut the benefit from 50% to 40% for years after people came in for 1986. the military leaders pushed civilians to undo. it they did it, there was no money put aside. you'll have to take it on, and if you don't, you're going to end up like some of these states do where, you know, they are -- their pension costs are beginning to eat them alive. basically you can do it as we did it in a fair way. you can grandfather people. but you know, when you make these promises to military
retirees and you don't pay for them, this is the problem that you're going to run into. >> mike, you think these cuts will go through, bottom line? >> i do. i think that the roughly $400 hundred billion, $450 billion over ten years in cuts make good sense. the harder question is, can you really increase them much beyond that? here larry and i disagree a bit. in a sense, here the obama administration has internal discord within its own thinking because on the one hand they're proposing this $400 hundred billion package which has become a moderate package. on the other hand, obama has no way out of sequestration at the moment. and he's pledged to veto a pill that would soften any aspect of sequestration unless it's done in broader deficit-neutral terms. so he's sort of got a little tension in his own policy. so do the republicans in congress. i think that's going to be the interesting question to watch over the next ten months, the sequestration sort of stay on course to occur, and to really kick in 12 months from now, or does it get mitt gated in the meantime? that to me is the big question. this first rnd of cuts is
totally fine if done wisely. i think the current thinking is pretty wise. >> and we'll be watching it. larry korb, michael o'hanlon, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thanks, fareed. stay with us, we have a very curious story up next. why most chinese this week couldn't watch their favorite tv shows. and won't ever be able to watch them again. i'll explain. [ monica ] i'm away on a movie shoot and it hasn't been going exactly as planned. cut. cut! [ monica ] i thought we'd be on location for 3 days -- it's been 3 weeks. so i had to pick up some more things.
good thing i've got the citi simplicity card. i don't get hit with a fee if i'm late with a payment... which is good because on this job, no! bigger! [ monica ] i may not be home for a while. [ male announcer ] the new citi simplicity card. no late fees. no penalty rate. no worries. my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller. over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪
imagine if you flicked on your television and found that the government had canceled "american idol," "30 rock," the office," and "dancing with the stars." that's essentially what happened in china when last week beijing eliminated a staggering 2/3 of all primetime entertainment. what in the world is going on? ♪ don't cry for me argentina >> "supergirl" looks and feels
like "american idol." but the chinese talent show was pulled for being too vulgar and too western. it's one of 88 entertainment shows that have been canceled. other programs that have survived have had to change. sensors have insured the dating vote "if you are the one" is the to racy, gone are the racy discussion business sex. ♪ >> why all the cuts? beijing reportedly wants to combat what it calls excessive entertainment and a trend toward low taste. these orders came from the very top -- from president hue intoo. in an essay published last week, president hu claimed that hostile international forces were plotting to westernize and divide china. he called for forceful measures to develop home-grown cultural products that could engage china's youth. mr. hu worries about china's place in the free world, the discrepancy between its growing economic clout and its relatively feeble cultural influence. we all know that china's gdp
will likely surpass america's total output within a decade or so. but as far as entertainment goes, the u.s. is completely dominant. china's top grossing films last year were all from hollywood. >> kung fu staring contest -- go! >> the latest sequels to "kung fu panda" and "pirates of the caribbean." that's despite huge restrictions beijing imposes on hollywood. >> there should be a captain -- >> what about domestic chinese films? well, the state lavished money on two star-studded propaganda epics last year, but they didn't bring in as much revenue as the hollywood releases. and that's in the domestic chinese market. outside of china, these chinese films barely registered. all this is putting frowns on the faces of china's leaders. beijing isn't satisfied simply with controlling domestic tv news and the internet, it wants to control the chinese tucultur diet. beijing wants more soft power.
♪ >> but back to our canceled tv shows, this is not simply about cultural exports. it's about controlling what the chinese people hear and see. mr. hu is trying to create a layer of stability in 2012 and beyond. 2012, of course, is an election year that sees beijing on the cusp of unprecedented change. seven of the nine top members of the standing committee will be stepping down. 70% of china's top 200 leaders will be replaced. and in his final months in office, mr. hu is focusing on internal politics and the transition. setting the ideological foundations to guide a new generation of young leaders. some of them like the party secretary of chong king, have been openly arguing that china has become too westernized, too material stick, too unequal, and too untethered from its past. bo has spoken of a return to
confucion values, returning to songs of the cultural revolution. he speaks irer are e reverently of china's maoist values. a lament about the consequences of capitalism. we've seen a bold assertive beijing in 2011. it spoke confidently after the crash of '08. it was tough on its neighbors. but 2012 is going to be different. look for a more win yard-focused community party -- inward-focused communist party that is trying to slow down and control the consequences of the economic juggernaut it has unleashed. and we'll be right back. up next, a war of words between iran and the west. new sanctions. but will all this turn into something much more serious? this is a story that impacts all of us. if tehran closes the straits of hormuz, oil prices could shoot up as much as 50% instantly. stay with us. phillips' colon heh probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live the regular life.
phillips'. can you enjoy vegetables with live t sauceular life. and still reach your weight loss goals? you can with green giant frozen vegetables. over twenty delicious varieties have sixty calories or less per serving and are now weight watchers-endorsed. try green giant frozen vegetables with sauce.
now time for a check of today's top stories. arizona congresswoman gabrielle giffords will attend a vigil marking the one-year anniversary of the massacre that wounded her and killed six others. she and her husband, retired navy captain and astronaut mark kelly, visited a memorial for gabe zimmerman, an aide of giffords who was killed in the attack. 23-year-old jared loughner is
charged in the shooting. nearly 100 soldiers confined to a seattle base following a report of missing sensitive military equipment that includes scopes and night lasers. the unit of soldiers returned home from iraq in 2010. authorities are offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to that missing equipment. arab league officials are meeting in cairo to discuss their mission in syria amid unrest that has killed thousands. in today's clashes in dara, at least 11 syrians were killed and 20 injured. the league says suspending monitors in syria is not an option being considered. and they may ask the united nations for help. former pakistani president pervez musharraf is expected today to announce plans to return to pakistan. the country's officials say if he does come back, musharraf will be arrested in connection with the assassination of former prime minister benazir bhutto. and in what's being described as new zealand's worst
maritime disaster, a cargo ship that ran aground off the country's coast three months ago has split in two. the ship's breakage spilled up to 300 containers and sparked concerns about an oil spill. those are your top stories. now back to "fareed zakaria gps." iran and the west are locked in a dangerous game of brinkmanship, a war of words and sanctions that could turn into something bigger. so what happens next? i have a panel of experts here with me. iranian-born vali nasr, professor of international politics at tufts university. he recently served in the obama state department. bret stephens is the foreign affairs columnist of the "wall street journal," formerly the editor of "the jerusalem post." hillary mann leverett worked in george w. bush's national security counscil for director f global affairs. hooman majd is one of the finest authors and commentators, the author of "the ayatollah's
democracy." born in tehran, he now lives in new york. welcome. hooman, you spent much of the last year in iran. >> yes. >> describe to me, what does life in iran look like with these mounting sanctions. >> difficult. life is difficult for the ordinary person. the inflation rate is very high in iran, as you know. you were there yourself. it's getting worse. foreign exchange, the foreign exchange rate has fluctuated dramatically the last few months based on people's anxiety about the sanctions and anxiety about the possibility of war. so life is actually difficult for the ordinary person, particularly in the big cities. >> wlom do you think odor -- whom do you think ordinary people blame? >> they a little baffled by the obama administration approach or the western approach to iran. they don't quite understand why these sanctions are being applied. they -- some people might blame the iranian government. but i think generally speaking, people are like, why is this happening? why is america doing this?
pause people are pretty sophisticated in iran, and they say, well, if they're trying to get our government to stop its nuclear program, that's not going to happen. >> when you look at the leadership issue of first they say they're going to block the straits of hormuz and then back down, there seems to be disarray. how do you read what the iranian leadership is trying to do at this point? >> well, there always is difference of opinion among the leaders about how to handle the negotiations, the sanctions in the united states. i think overall a decision in iran has been made to meet threat with threat, violation of sovereigntiy with violation of sovereignty and show an aggressive face to the west in order to back the west off. now, there are people who may go too far and then they are sort of yanked back. but it's very clear that iran has made a very clear decision that the way to deal with the united states on these sanctions issues is preemptive, to try to raise the cost to the west and
sending warnings in the hope that the administration will back off. >> what did -- what are iran's cards here? you know, the west has all these cards of economic sanctions and potentially more military issue strikes. what is -- what are iran's credible threats? >> well, first of all, i think iran would like to educate the west in the fact that the imposition of sanctions is not going to be cost-free. so that iran can or can threaten to close the straits of hormuz, can threaten allies, can threaten regional stability. there is a perception that iranians mentioned that that's going to cause an impact on energy markets, and europe and the united states right now are vulnerable. and generally this are still many areas in which the united states is vulnerable in the region. in afghanistan, in iraq. and the iranians have a perception that the obama administration has been talking about sanctions as if they hold all the cards. they can make all the moves, and well is no iranian blow-back in a sense. >> bret, seems like the obama
administration is being very tough on iran. we'll get into the issue of whether or not, you know, it's working and such. but from your point of view as somebody who's always had a pretty tough line, surely you must be pleased. >> i'm more pleased -- i wish the sanctions, the oil sanctions that are now coming into play, both from the united states and also the european union had been done earlier. i think they would have had a greater effect on the regime -- >> it takes time to get -- >> these things take time. as we learned from the iaea report late last fall, the iranians have made -- made strides in their nuclear program. i want to somewhat take issue with something vali said or make another point. the iranians are belligerent whatever the stance of the united states. the obama administration came in to office very clearly seeking an open hand outreach toward the iranians. now you might quibble that it wasn't done in an appropriate style or it lacked a certain kind of nuance. but the general thrust of the
obama president's approach was to congratulate the islamic republic on their new year to negotiate face to face. and the response from the get go, from the iranians was belligerent. not just at the level of negotiations, but taking those american hikers hostage, taking that american journalist hostage and putting her through a kind of kangaroo court. so we shouldn't sort of imagine that iranian behavior today is purely dictate by what has transpired in the last two or three months. >> henry, you think the obama administration has been too tough in a sense, right? >> yeah, i don't think they were ever tough about engagement. the obama administration didn't really understand what it would take. when nixon and kissinger came into office wanting to look at the people's dealings with
china, they talked about leadership, they stood down covert operations with tibet and the straits of taiwan. two important things to show to the leadership in the prc. what did the obama administration do? they with h one 45-minute meeting over the flash egg, they ignored president ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to obama. and when the supreme leader responded to obama's new year's message to the leaders and people of -- the islamic republic of iran, the supreme leader responded that, we, the iranians, have no experience with your administration, the obama administration. if you change your policies, so will we. that was a critical opening, and i've been told by people within the iranian national security council that it was fully cleared, authorized, and thought through. it was a major strategic error that we did not pursue serious, sustained diplomacy with the islamic republic of iran. president obama has brought us closer to the brink of conflict with iran than even the bush
administration did. >> we're going to come back. when we come back, i will let bret respond and we'll talk about the next step. white meat chicken. the way i always made it for you. one more thing.... those pj's you like, i bought you five new pairs. love you. did you see the hockey game last night? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. try bayer advanced aspirin. it has microparticles so it enters the bloodstream fast and rushes relief to the site of your tough pain. it's proven to relieve pain twice as fast as before. bayer advanced aspirin. when i'm out with my kids, my daughter's like, "mom, wait up!" and i'm thinking, "shouldn't you have more energy than me? you're, like, eight!" [ male announcer ] for every 2 pounds you lose through diet and exercise alli can help you lose one more by blocking some of the fat you eat. simple. effective. advantage: mom.
we are back talking about iran and the dangers and opportunity with vali nasr, bret stephens, hillary mann leverett, and hooman majd. bret, do you feel that the obama administration made a serious offer of diplomacy? there are lots of people who feel that, you know, we've missed many opportunities for negotiation on both sides. you think that it's essentially -- it's pointless to try and negotiate because this is a regime that doesn't want a reconciliation -- >> i think that's right. i think the iranians are of two views. that the west is either trying to subvert them through a velvet revolution process. or they're trying to subvert them actively through covert operations or military strikes. and so on. so i think that in my view goes very far to explain the incredibly harsh and immediate reaction to president obama's very public efforts at outreach -- >> what do you say to that? >> i think the iranians, inside the islamic republic, they are concern good u.s. attempt to
undermine, subvert an attack in the country. they need to defend the country just as they needed to defend the country against saddam hussein's invasion in 1980. absolutely there's a clear sense of self-defense, preservation of the country. not just the ruling elite, but the country. there's an absolute imperative for that. with that, iran also sees itself surrounded by 15 neighbors. not one of them except for iraq today possibly is an ally. iran has real national security concerns, legitimate interests, that in part can be alleviated by a much better relationship with the united states. that is why the islamic republic of iran has periodically even from its inception been open to working with the united states. remember the iran ircontra affa. remember bush 41, working with the united states to get weapons to the muslims in bosnia. working with the united states and afghanistan after 9/11. sending in an offer for comprehensive negotiations in
2003. there have been repeated steps. and when the leader of the islamic republic of iran says in one of the holiest places in iran, says to crowds and crowds of iranians, we don't have any experience with this administration. if you change your policies, so will we, that was serious. >> you're telling iran -- a 30-year record of iranian efforts and outreach to the united states, arrogantly or foolishly rebuffed by the united states. this is not a regime that supports terrorist groups, tries to kill a saudi ambassador. perhaps is justifiably incurred the -- the resentment and fear of its neighbors. >> all right. let me ask you, vali, you were in the state department when the issues were debated. whether the u.s. should be -- should be reaching out in some way or the other. how is this going to end? pau because if you put all this pressure on them, is there a strategy for some kind of negotiated outcome? because otherwise the pressure builds and if the iranians as you say kind of match pressure
with pressure, you -- you know, things can get very, very -- risky. i mean, if you look at the price of oil, i'll struck by this. in a global recession with this huge slump, the price of oil is $110 a barrel. the price of oil in -- the beginning of 2011 was $50 a barrel. with every economy booming in the world. so it has to be -- the fears of political risk that are doing this, and so where do we go from sneer. >> going from here? if the objective of the administration is to get the iranians to the table or change their behavior, the sanctions regime is not going to work. for a very simple reason. because the sanctions, the level they're going to -- are going to threat not the stability of the regime. if you threaten the stability of the regime, what kicks in is a libya scenario. in other words, even the supreme leader said that gadhafi was an idiot for giving up his nuclear weapons because if you give up your wepts, you don't have any weapons of mass destruction deterrents. then your people rise up, there is nothing to protect you from outside intervention.
so if we're going to threaten the stability of the regime through these draconian sanctions, you're going to only give iran more encouragement to stick to its guns and try to race past the point of no return. so these sanctions currently are counterproductive. >> what will bring iran to the negotiating table? >> i think to get them to the negotiating table where you might have a positive result, you'd have to -- going back to what hillary was saying and how the obama administration had some outreach to iran but it wasn't enough, the 45-minute meeting and so on and so forth, a friday prayer leader in yaz told me at the time, right at the time obama was elected, he said, well, if obama's serious -- this is what they tell their flock, they tell their people. if he's really serious, why doesn't he lift one of the sanctions? one sanction is spare parts for our civilian aircraft. today if an iranian wants to fly on iran air or even on british midland airways between london and tehran, that plane has to refuel in armenia or in greece or somewhere else where they can get fuel. they can't even get fuel for
their airlines when they go abroad. this is directly affecting the iranian people. the iranian government is making sure the iranian people know that it's directly affecting them. they don't quite understand why the sanctions are there. they don't quite understand why their planes are falling out of the sky when they could easily be buying boeings to safely take people. they were looking. i think this is a reflection of the leadership. i think hillary's correct. they were looking for some sign -- i don't know about china, i'm not an expert at all. i'm not a historian. buff i think they were looking for some sign beyond the rhetoric that said, yeah, we're actually serious about this. >> given all the pressures that are building, do you believe within a year we will have reached some kind of crisis? will there be an israeli strike? what is this going to look like a year from now? if the pressures are building to a point where something feels like it's going to give? >> i think we are in a crisis. the question is whenn we were i a breakdown. we're not where we were in 2003 or in 2009. we're at the point where -- the
regime in iran would feel that if they sat at the table and they gave what bret is saying, that they will be under threat. ultimately we want the suspension to come first, normalization later. that makes them sentible to some kind of action against them, as i said, to a libya scenario. they're not going to come to the table just because of the pressure. and right now, the administration has not put forth a roadmap to a robust diplomatic negotiation. it's just pressure, pressure, pressure. and buckling now would actually make him vulnerable. so i think they're going to hold their cards. >> an israeli strike. what is the possibility within the next year there will be a strike? >> i think it's highly likely. >> without the united states? >> i think it is -- it is increasingly likely because there's a perception among israelis that the united states will not do what israelis have hoped they would do because for israelis and iran with the nuclear weapon is unacceptable, particularly in the current
religious and political climate in the middle east. and because i think the israeli leadership really sees this as a threat like none other in their history. >> we'll have to go. thank you all so much. fascinating conversation. we'll be back. le -- 8% every 10 years. wow. wow. but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge! my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller.
over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪ when it comes to home insurance, surprises can be a little scary. and a little costly. that's why the best agents present their clients with a lot of options. because when it comes to what's covered and what's not, nobody likes surprises. [ click ] [ chuckles ] we totally thought -- [ all scream ] obscure space junk falling from the sky? we cover that. moving on. aah, aah, aah, aah. [ male announcer ] we are insurance. ♪ we are farmers ♪ bum, ba-da-bum, bum, bum, bum ♪
land this week? is it a, sinead o'connor in ireland, b, andrea bocelli of italy, c, youss you don't nd you don't r, over ted nugent of the usa? go to cnn.com/gps for ten more questions. while there, check out our website, the global public square, it gets better, fresher, greater every day. and don't forget, you can follow us on twitter and facebook. this week's book of the week was written in 1935. but it's a great book and there's a gorgeous me to edition out. if you like big histories, sweeping tales, you'll love "a little history of the world," by e.h. gombrich. a book of the history worst world with short chapters. the illustrations are perfect. this is a treat for the eyes and the mind. for the last look, three years ago when india launched its nano line, observer said it was impossible to go smaller or
cheaper. they've been proven wrong. this week another indian manufacturer revealed the teensy re60. it has been crowned the new champion in the race to the microscopic. we thought we'd do a tale of tape continue the re60 and america's biggest passenger automobile, the fully loaded escalade. the indian entry weighs 881 pounds. the american, 7,100. the re60 gets 82 miles to the gallon. the escalade, 18. when it comes to price, the cadillac with all the bells and whistles will run you well over $80,000. that is about 40 time what the indian car is expected to cost. finally, while the cadillac seats eight comfortably, the re60 supposedly seats four passagers which means four indians which probably translates into two americans. the